2007 Ct. Sup. 4367
No. FA 06-4104355SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at Norwich
March 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
RANDOLPH, J.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The matter proceeded to trial on January 11, 2007. After four days of testimony, the trial concluded on March 14, 2007. Counsel represented plaintiff. Defendant is a member of the Connecticut bar and represented himself.
II. ISSUES
What is a fair and equitable distribution of property in this case? Should the court award alimony to plaintiff? If so, how much and for what term?
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The court finds the following facts proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff and defendant married on October 31, 1992. They have no children. Plaintiff is 57 years old and has been married five times. Defendant is 35 years old and his marriage to plaintiff is his first. He is in good health. Plaintiff has an undergraduate degree in Theater and English from Connecticut College and a graduate degree from Wesleyan University with a focus on the Irish Literary Renaissance.
Plaintiff suffers from post-polio syndrome and small fiber neuropathy. She has difficulty walking and on some days is unable to walk. She sometimes uses a cane but at other times is able to climb stairs while carrying bulky objects. She receives Social Security Disability benefits totaling $1,031.00 per month. Her outstanding medical bills total over $5,200.00. Plaintiff expects to qualify for Medicaid or Medicare at the end of April 2007. Her total liabilities are approximately $60,000.00.
Plaintiff has held many positions since her marriage to defendant. In 1993, plaintiff took a position as an adjunct professor at California CT Page 4368 State University at San Bernardino. At the time, plaintiff and defendant lived in Barstow, California. The commute to San Bernardino took two hours each way. She taught there for one semester. In 1994, plaintiff took a job at Fort Irwin, California as a transition counselor. The commute to Fort Irwin from Barstow was 78 miles each way. She took a second job at California Baptist College in Barstow as an adjunct professor. Defendant was in the Marine Corps from the beginning of the marriage until 1997.
Plaintiff moved from Barstow, California to Iowa and took a position at William Penn University as Director of Theater Services in Oskaloosa, Iowa. After discharge from the Marine Corps, defendant moved to Iowa and enrolled at William Penn University. Defendant was able to complete his undergraduate degree at William Penn for free because plaintiff worked there. Plaintiff and defendant purchased a home in Iowa in 1996. They refinanced the home and plaintiff took $20,000.00 from the refinance and deposited it in the joint checking account.
While teaching at William Penn, plaintiff opened a dance school to supplement her income. After teaching, she worked every afternoon from 3:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. at the dance school. On certain days, she would attend rehearsals with her theater students from 9:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. At the same time, defendant had enrolled at the University of Iowa Law School. Plaintiff maintained residency in Iowa so that defendant could attend law school and pay a modest in-state tuition. Plaintiff paid for most of the household expenses while defendant was in law school.[1] Defendant was not employed during that time. He used his benefits as an active duty marine to pay for up to seventy five percent of his undergraduate education costs while in Iowa. He also used some of the money under the G.I. Bill to pay for college. He received $528.00 per month from the G.I. Bill to pay for law school. While in law school, defendant did not live in the marital residence, but near the school. Defendant graduated from law school near the top of his class.
After her contract expired at William Penn, plaintiff moved to Las Vegas and took a position at the Meadows School as a permanent substitute teacher. When defendant joined her, he took a waiter’s job in the evening and studied for the Nevada bar exam during the day. They moved to Connecticut in 2000.
After returning to Connecticut, plaintiff and defendant lived in plaintiff’s sister’s home in Groton. Plaintiff’s sister, Margaret Hermes, charged them no rent for approximately six months and then charged them below market rent of $300.00 per month. Mrs. Hermes bought food and clothes for plaintiff and defendant and paid for gas, CT Page 4369 electricity and heat. Plaintiff took jobs at a warehouse, in the Lebanon school system as a permanent substitute teacher and as an assistant professor at the Allen Institute in Hebron.
Defendant passed the Connecticut bar exam and took a position in the New London Judicial District Clerk’s Office. He later opened his own office at plaintiff’s sister’s home in an upstairs bedroom. Plaintiff helped remodel the lower level of the house so that defendant could use the lower level as his office. At the time plaintiff’s sister moved out of the house, she was charging plaintiff and defendant $1,000.00 per month for rent. Plaintiff and defendant lived in the house from 2000 until 2004.
Plaintiff began working for defendant’s law office making copies, answering phones and running errands. Defendant later rented conference room space in Shelton and Hartford. Plaintiff worked for defendant without pay. She handled cash receivables, payables and invoicing.
Plaintiff began seeking employment in November 2005. She is trying to develop business relationships hoping for a business opportunity to blossom. In pursuit of the opportunity, plaintiff spends money on prospective clients for food and for business meetings. She has sold jewelry and taken cash advances on her credit card to pay for these expenses and to pay for her household expenses.
Defendant used to launch “verbal rages” against plaintiff in public when they lived in Barstow. The tirades would last for hours and would occur about twice a week. In Oskaloosa, the verbal assaults would occur every other day. In Connecticut, the verbal rages continued. Plaintiff’s sister and defendant’s employees witnessed defendant’s tirades against plaintiff. Defendant is frustrated with his wife’s appearance and with what he perceives is her lack of effort in seeking and maintaining a good job.
The name of defendant’s business is Zenas Zelotes, LLC, d/b/a 21st Century Attorney Services. He has a home office. When defendant opened his law practice he focused on consumer protection law. In 2001, he filed bankruptcy. He later developed a bankruptcy practice, taking in 400 cases in the first nine and one-half months of 2005. However, he took in no cases during the remaining months of 2005. In 2005, his parents lent him approximately $10,000.00 to help the business. In 2006, defendant filed 48 bankruptcy cases. In 2007, he has filed eight cases so far. He has laid off his staff and has closed conference space he rented in Hartford and Shelton. Defendant also vacated his office at Shaw’s Cove in New London. CT Page 4370
Defendant helped negotiate a partnership agreement between North Stonington Studios and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. North Stonington Studios was a limited partnership formed to develop movie studios and other entertainment facilities in North Stonington. He had expected to gain some form of interest in the company ranging from less than one-half percent to one percent. North Stonington Studios and its successor entity have not paid plaintiff for his work. Development has not begun and the project appears to have fizzled.
Defendant is also performing legal work for a client in Pennsylvania with whom he has an intimate relationship and with whom he has no formal fee arrangement. They visit each other 12 or 13 days a month and she allows him to use space in her home in Pennsylvania to work on legal matters. She also drives to Connecticut to spend some weekends with defendant.
Defendant’s gross weekly income is $1,696.95. He owns, debt free, a 2000 Jaguar S-Type valued at $9,680.00. Defendant is in arrears to creditors for advertising, malpractice insurance, car insurance, car payments, student loans, bar admission fees, telephone service, internet access and other services. He pays alimony pendente lite in the amount of $300.00 per month. He has not paid any state tax obligation since the first quarter of 2005. His liabilities total over $60,000.00. He believes his practice can recover to the point where he’ll be able to pay off all of his liabilities.
IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82.
V. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff paid for most of the marital household expenses while defendant attended college and law school in Iowa. He was able to attend college at a modest cost because plaintiff held a position at the college. While in law school, plaintiff maintained the marital residence while defendant lived near the school. Once in Connecticut, plaintiff’s sister’s benevolence helped support plaintiff, defendant and defendant’s business. His first law office was in plaintiff’s sister’s home. She charged plaintiff and defendant below market rent, bought them food and clothing and paid for gas, electricity and heat. Plaintiff worked for defendant, without pay, doing clerical and administrative work. She has contributed substantially to his status and to his earning potential as a practicing attorney.[2] The defendant believes his practice can CT Page 4371 satisfy his substantial debts.
Defendant excelled in law school. His bankruptcy practice flourished for a short period, but bankruptcy reform eroded his client base. Defendant has developed legal and practical skills which are marketable inside and outside of the legal profession. Although his practice is suffering and he continues to incur debt, he has a much greater ability to acquire capital assets and income than plaintiff. He is 35 years old. His gross business income is $88,400.00 per year. He is substantially more employable than plaintiff. He is in good health. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has liabilities totaling approximately $60,000.00, is unemployed and has suffered from a chronic disease since childhood. She is able to work, but must be afforded a reasonable accommodation to maintain full-time employment.
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/JUDGMENT
The marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no hope of reconciliation.
A. The marriage is dissolved.
B. Husband shall pay alimony in the amount of $400.00 per week for seven years.
C. Defendant shall pay the health insurance premiums until plaintiff qualifies for Medicare/Medicaid.
D. Defendant shall maintain any current life insurance policy, or secure a new life insurance policy if none is in effect, with a death benefit of two hundred thousand dollars naming plaintiff as irrevocable beneficiary for as long as defendant owes plaintiff any alimony under the Judgment.
E. Defendant shall pay the arrearages ordered by the court from the sale of the 2000 Jaguar automobile within 90 days.
F. Defendant shall pay plaintiff 33% of the value of any equity interest or income he may gain from North Stonington Studios or any of its successor entities or any other venture with Joe Caldrello. CT Page 4372 Such payments will terminate upon plaintiff’s death.
G. Each party shall be responsible for the debts listed on their respective financial affidavits.
H. Each party shall be responsible for their respective attorneys fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CT Page 4373